Astronomy · Unit 2: History & Tools of Astronomy · Project 2.1.3

The Project: The Long Argument

📊 In-Class Project
3 in-class days. Format choice, content checklist, day-by-day plan, and rubric below.
Back to Project 2.1.3

🎯 Deliverable — Pick a Format

One of these two, covering all four astronomers either way.

📅 Timeline

A visual timeline (poster, digital, or drawn) with all four astronomers placed in order, each annotated with their specific evidence.

🎤 Presentation

A short slide deck or spoken presentation walking through the same four-astronomer argument in order.

📋 Content Checklist — One Row Per Astronomer

Every astronomer needs the SPECIFIC evidence checked off below — not just their name and model.

AstronomerMust Include
Geocentric model; epicycles/deferents reproduce retrograde motion; genuinely accurate, but not the only model that could be
Heliocentric model; explains retrograde motion naturally; correct planet order — but not more accurate than Ptolemy's, just simpler
Ellipses, not circles, using Tycho Brahe's precise data; the first model that actually out-predicted Ptolemy
Telescopic observation — specifically the phases of Venus (and what they ruled out), plus at least one more (Jupiter's moons or the imperfect Moon/Sun)

📅 Day-by-Day Plan

Day 1
Research & Outline
Review the Deep Dive for Galileo's evidence; revisit 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 for Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler. Outline your four astronomers in order, with the specific evidence for each sketched next to their name before you build anything polished.
Day 2
Build the Draft
Build your timeline or presentation draft. For each astronomer, write one sentence that explicitly connects their evidence to what came before — that connective sentence is what separates an argument from a list of four facts.
Day 3
Finalize & Submit
Trade with a partner for an accuracy check — the Copernicus-wasn't-more-accurate nuance and the Venus-phases-didn't-prove-everything nuance are the two easiest things to oversimplify. Fix, finalize, and submit.

📊 Grading Rubric — 100 pts

A starting point — adjust weights to fit your class before assigning.

CategoryWeightExemplaryProficientDevelopingIncomplete
Evidence Citation40 ptsEach astronomer's SPECIFIC evidence or argument is named and explained accurately (not just their name/model).Most astronomers have specific evidence cited; one is vague or generic.Astronomers are named but evidence is missing or mostly incorrect for two or more.No specific evidence cited for any astronomer.
Argument Flow25 ptsClearly shows how each piece of evidence responded to or built on what came before — a real argument, not a list.Mostly connected; one transition is unclear or missing.Reads as a list of four separate facts with little connective reasoning.No discernible argument structure.
Format Execution20 ptsTimeline or presentation is clear, well-organized, and appropriately paced for its format.Mostly clear with minor organizational issues.Cluttered or hard to follow.Format requirements not met.
Process & Presentation15 ptsSubmitted on time, sources credited, neat and complete.Mostly complete and on time; small presentation issues.Late or noticeably incomplete.Not submitted.
← Back to Project 2.1.3🔬 Review the Deep Dive →

🔭 Project 2.1.3 · Unit 2 of 6 · Single Semester